Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicants seeking to protect rights arising from the sale of a secured asset during an operative moratorium should be impleaded in the pending appeal.
Analysis: The applicants assert that a sale of a mortgaged asset occurred while a moratorium arising from an earlier insolvency order was in force and that the subsequent admission of a second CIRP may imperil the purchaser's and bank's rights. Where a civil right is at risk of being affected by ongoing proceedings, persons whose substantive rights may be collateral casualties are entitled to be heard. The need to implead depends on whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties because, in their absence, collateral damage to rights dealt with in the transaction can occur. The court considered that the applicants have a direct interest in the subject-matter (the sold secured asset) and that their participation is necessary to secure justice and to allow them to place before the tribunal contentions regarding the legality of the impugned admission and the potential impact on the sale.
Conclusion: The applications for impleadment are allowed; the applicants shall be impleaded as respondents 3 and 4, the appellant shall amend the memo of parties and serve the appeal papers on the newly impleaded parties within three days, and the impleaded respondents may file objections by 27 March 2026 with rejoinder by 10 April 2026.